Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#15 - Rascal (01/24/2013) [-]
You americans are BEYOOOND stupid.

Why would you let ANYONE carry a device that can end a person's life in a milisecond?

All your PRO arguments are complete and utter **** .

Actually, I ******* hope they let the guns be free for all because you americans are a prime example of natural selection.

11k death annually due to guns, are you ******* kidding me...
User avatar #176 to #15 - fredthemilkman (01/24/2013) [-]

I'm sure if somebody were to break into your house with the soul intention of hurting you or one of your loved ones, you would wish you had a gun.
It's better to be safe than sorry.
And it's not like we're not going to have any guns in America. I live in Texas, which is north of Mexico. Mexicans illegally import guns every day. Banning guns won't stop it.
User avatar #82 to #15 - GBird (01/24/2013) [-]
Who cares. Guns will always be around. It is not going to change a thing what Obama does. It's written in the constitution, therefore it will almost never be changed. The only repeal there has ever been for an amendment was prohibition.
User avatar #55 to #15 - ivoryhammer (01/24/2013) [-]
Don't lob us all Americans in with the stupid ass rednecks who tote their guns around.
#17 to #15 - Helle (01/24/2013) [-]
the how come other countries have about the same homocide rate and they dont have guns?
#21 to #17 - ichtus (01/24/2013) [-]
The answer is quite obvious if you look at the list of countries by intentional homicide rate, for instance on wikipedia. One might notice that all countries with a higher homocide rate than the U.S have a living standard way below the level of the U.S., which implies higher crime rates and hence more homicide victims. If we look at the top ten list of countries by human development index (on which the U.S. scores fourth) we notice that all countries have a way lower homicide rate.

As for the chart: one should be extremely cautious not to compare the orange/green bars with the blue bars. It is not about reducing death, it is about reducing intentional murder (i.e. not the self-inflicted or unintenional ones).

Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that weapons meant for killing make society more dangerous, even if the weapon is originally meant for self-defence.

Lastly, while I happen to agree with a lot of the statements of moderate opponents of increased gun regulation, I am quite positive that a thougtful dialogue about the social effects of widespread gun ownership will eventually lead to less dramatic deaths.
#22 to #21 - Rascal (01/24/2013) [-]
Axes original use was for killing as were bats, ban those too?
#29 to #22 - ichtus (01/24/2013) [-]
I tend to disagree: axes were originally developed for sharpening sticks, which in turn were used as weapons. But that is most certainly not the point. In the eyes of most modern humans, axes are meant for cutting wood or shaping tools. Guns have the image of a murder weapon, no matter how often it is used for sports, and the psychological step from owning a gun to using a gun to harm others (including in self-defense) will consequently be much smaller.
I would very much like to remind you that I am not a proponent of banning guns from society completely. I have no need to deny people access to their preferred sports, but I do think guns are to prevalent in the American society.
#31 to #29 - Rascal (01/24/2013) [-]
Just because some people are ignorant about guns doesn't warrant regulation, and the data shows otherwise as more people use the weapon that people see as a non weapon.
#16 to #15 - Rascal (01/24/2013) [-]
And 2 million incidents per year where someone used a gun to defend themselves. And the 11k includes suicides, self defense, and police using their weapons.
 Friends (0)